posted at 1:21 pm on April 24, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

At the beginning of a defense case in a criminal trial, attorneys will routinely move to dismiss some or all of the charges on the basis of a failure by the prosecution to present enough evidence. The judge in the trial of Kermit Gosnell agreed this week on three of the murder counts, but has since reconsidered on one count. Judge Jeffrey Minehart reinstated the charge related to “Baby C,” whom staffers testified breathed on his own for 20 minutes after the botched abortion, admitting a mistake in his order:

Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Minehart had ruled Tuesday that prosecutors over the past month failed to make a case on three of the seven first-degree murder counts, involving aborted babies known as Baby B, Baby C and Baby G.

On Wednesday, Minehart clarified that he did not intend to dismiss charges related to Baby C, which former employee Lynda Williams admits killing after it was alive for 20 minutes.

Instead, Minehart has thrown out the charges involving Baby F, which allegedly jerked its leg after it was born. Another staff member says Gosnell then cut the baby’s neck to “ensure fetal demise.”

To be clear, Minehart has still thrown out three of the murder charges, which are now down to five — four children and Karnamaya Monger. Minehart refused to dismiss those charges, denying the defense motion. That means Jack McMahon will have to present a defense, starting as early as this afternoon, in a case that could still carry the death penalty for the abortionist.

“I am shocked that these counts have been dismissed. I have heard testimony by very credible witnesses to the effect that these babies were murdered in cold blood by Gosnell as they cried and struggled for life. We pray that justice will be done in the remaining five victims of Gosnell’s horrific slayings,” said Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Policy Advisor for Operation Rescue, who has observed the trial and published first-hand accounts of the proceedings.

Sullenger said testimony from the medical examiner and toxicologist has indicated that there was no evidence the babies were injected with Digoxin to ensure the babies were dead prior to the abortion, as the defense has claimed.

The medical examiner testified that tests were inconclusive as proof that the babies were born alive. However, the tests also did not prove the babies were dead prior to birth. Those inconclusive test results were overshadowed by the weight of testimony from witness after witness, who detailed how the babies were in fact living prior to being murdered through what one witness described as a “virtual beheading.”

“If Gosnell gets off scot-free, that will send a message that murdering live babies and abortion patients is now acceptable behavior in America and that abortionists who engage in such depraved practices are above the law. This would put women and babies in grave danger – more than they already face – at abortion clinics throughout the nation,” said Sullenger.

Without being in the courtroom, it’s difficult to determine just how well the prosecution presented that case in the opening round of the trial. The burden of proof for the prosecution not only involves presenting clear evidence of intent to murder (or gross neglect amounting to intent), but also that an actual murder took place. The judge has the responsibility to dismiss charges where the prosecution hasn’t presented enough evidence to allow a jury to consider guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The fact that Minehart allowed more than half of the charges to remain — and corrected the record expeditiously on which specific charges remain — tend to demonstrate that he’s taking that responsibility seriously. The case will continue, and the jury will have the chance to deliver a verdict on Gosnell’s operation.

Update: And that chance may come a lot sooner than we thought. The intrepid JD Mullane just tweeted:

Wow. It seems that McMahon either thinks that all of the highly shocking testimony had no impact on the jury, or he doesn’t have a real defense against it.

Update: If the judge sent the jury out until Monday, he at least has some time to see if McMahon wants to reconsider. With all of the very powerful testimony about the neck-snipping and conditions in the clinic, it seems almost incomprehensible to me that an attorney would roll the dice on getting a jury to dispassionately dispense with the charges.

Update: Commenter Resist We Much offers this analysis of McMahon’s strategy:

Three possibilities:

1. He believes that he proved Gosnell’s innocence during the prosecution’s case-in-chief via cross-examination; or

2. He believes the jury is likely to convict and instead of putting on a case that might inflame and lead them to impose the death sentence (even though there is a separate sentencing ‘trial’); or

3. He thinks conviction is likely and is setting up an ineffectiveness of counsel appellate issue for his client.

As I noted above, he is charged with far more than first-degree murder. He is also on trial for infanticide (different charge than FDM), violating PA’s Controlled Substances Act, PA’s Abortion Control Act, fraud and conspiracy relative to narcotic distribution, tampering with evidence, corrupt organisation (PA’s version of the RICO Act), etc. His wife, Pearl, has already pleaded guilty to performing illegal abortions, corrupt organisation, and criminal conspiracy – all felonies.

I think those three strategies cover all the rational possibilities for McMahon’s strategic decision, and #1 is almost certainly not the case. My first inclination is to lean toward #3, which may be the reason why Judge Minehart has sent the jury out for the rest of the week; he might want to get McMahon on record explaining this decision and minimize the danger of getting a verdict tossed by an appellate court later. I think, though, that McMahon may be thinking along the lines of #2, and having failed to get the judge to toss out all of the murder counts, is now trying to do his best to salvage whatever leeway exists with the jury for the sentencing.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Christ is part of the Godhead……from scriptures I’ve posted above, I think it’s pretty clear what Christ intended for this earth and it’s behaviors.

avagreen on April 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Yes, but you’re arguing with someone who didn’t get their three wishes when they rubbed the lamp, and who apparently has some unresolved guilt surrounding the issue at hand, as evidenced by the vitriol they spew in every thread on this topic. Keep that in mind, and decide for yourself if it’s worth the aggravation.

“And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army.”

“And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.”

“And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh.”

Boy, that was easy. Disagree with someone’s interpretation of idiotic religious doctrine written by probably-drunk desert wanderers thousands of years ago? Call them an apostate! Problem solved.

Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Apostasy on libertariansim. You, my troll, are not. You are in fact an ultimate individualist. An ultimate individualist does not live under anyone’s authority but their own. Your post history will vouch for that. You would be happy to live in a world with no order, and that isn’t in way manner or form libertarianism.

I’d rather try to reason with progressives than religious zealots. I think most of them could be persuaded that minimal government serves their needs better than intrusive government. But people who see themselves as “not of this world” and believe they have a divine mandate to spread the “good news”? Forget it.

And that’s when there aren’t groups of lawful citizens going up in small groups to settle scores with the worthless likes of him, from raiding their houses for bling-bling to finance the SUSA’s precious-metal stocks right up to sport hunting.

I don’t claim to be a Christian. I replied to nonpartisan on a question about Jesus, because the idea was a sweet guy whose purpose in ancient Israel was to give lollipops to kids is wrong and ultimately dangerous. I interpret nonpartisan as having the facile view that the point of all religions is just to be nice. One result of this effort to castrate all religion is to interpret Jesus saying “Judge not, lest ye be judged” so fundamentalistly that it acts as nuclear bomb to the meaning of everything else Jesus said. The leftists love to play this game, and sometimes even conservative Christians will play it to deflect atheist criticism. This is a huge mistake because denies that there is Christian message.
It is also a dangerous mistake, because we end up lying about Islam when we believe that all religions are just ways of saying we should be nice to each other.
By the way, I do think a moderate Christian could believe pretty much what I believe.

Reasoning with progressives is about like reasoning with a toddler who wants a candy bar at the checkout line. They want what they want – state-sponsored sex lives, welfare galore, various ‘green’ projects, squashing of religions that make them feel guilty – and they don’t care how many eggs get cracked to make their omelets.

I’d rather try to reason with progressives than religious zealots. I think most of them could be persuaded that minimal government serves their needs better than intrusive government. But people who see themselves as “not of this world” and believe they have a divine mandate to spread the “good news”? Forget it.

Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2013 at 3:19 PM

On second thought, forget thirds. That kind of stupidity deserves to be lorded over by communists.

Infanticide in the USA, in this century, sanctioned by Obama, thuja (and the best here who back thuja), Armin, and the left, exactly like in India and China…

Schadenfreude on April 24, 2013 at 3:25 PM

The only mild break we’ve gotten is that it hasn’t been focused on one gender. Otherwise our mass importing of unskilled peasants would have already resulted in cultural collapse. Imagine ~40 million of the 55 million abortions had been girls. We’d already be finished.

A zealot is a zealot–religious or progressive. I think you are confusing the non-judgmental demeanour of some progressive with openness to reason.

I don’t think most progressives are zealouts. (I also don’t think all Christians are zealots; most of them don’t take their own religion much more seriously than I do.) Progressives are generally rational materialists. They care about their own bottom line, just like I do. We differ on how best to ensure our own interests. They’ve been misled into believing that government can provide them prosperity and security, and I suppose for a while it can, but eventually the money dries up. I believe that minimal government interference in both markets and the private affairs of people is the best way to promote a prosperous, free society. I also don’t believe that this should be a very hard sell to reasonable people, regardless of their political orientation.

I don’t think most progressives are zealouts. (I also don’t think all Christians are zealots; most of them don’t take their own religion much more seriously than I do.) Progressives are generally rational materialists. They care about their own bottom line, just like I do. We differ on how best to ensure our own interests. They’ve been misled into believing that government can provide them prosperity and security, and I suppose for a while it can, but eventually the money dries up. I believe that minimal government interference in both markets and the private affairs of people is the best way to promote a prosperous, free society. I also don’t believe that this should be a very hard sell to reasonable people, regardless of their political orientation.

Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Good job on doubling down on a perfectly winnable arguement.

Look up the history of progressivism. You will shocked at what you find. They hate everything that is free markets. Their primary goal is to, wait for it, PROGRESS into, wait for it, TOTALITARIANISM.

Yeah we probably shouldn’t even take you seriously anymore.. Progressives are rational materialists and can be convinced of limited government intervention.. Bwahhahhha.

You do realize that to many progressives- the state is their God.

melle1228 on April 24, 2013 at 3:51 PM

I have heard some progressive Reform Jews state this explicitly. I sometimes worry this is the mainstream of Reform Judaism. I find my usually conservative stances conflict with my religion. I am resigned to this conflict.

Apparently you don’t understand the concept of facetiousness. I wouldn’t want that to happen, if only because I wouldn’t want a little Christian version of Afghanistan in my backyard, fenced in or not.

Yup, every single liberal in the country wants to live under a totalitarian dictatorship. Bloomberg is their patron saint. Etc. etc.

The rub is that none of them believe that the totalitarian state will really apply to them; that they’re so compassionate, so morally and intellectually superior, so liberal, that their ticket to the nomenklatura is going to be automatically punched, and they’ll be able to do what they want while lording over us peasants.

It’ll be a very rude shock to most of them they’re given their number and told to join the rest of the peasants outside the gates by the real nomenklatura, but by then it’ll be too late for them to do anything about it.

By this judge’s definition, any infant not born kicking and screaming is not alive until it moves and breathes. So why should we bother with neonatal resuscitation and instead just tell the mother the baby is stillborn? Is that another Obamacare plan to reduce healthcare costs?

Maybe they would be reachable if they thought we cared about their children, alive and in utero, and that they shouldn’t have to go to substandard “medical” facilities where they come away sicker than they went in. Instead they are educated that somehow the rich are taking away from what they don’t have and never will have unless they break the cycle.

The red states may have lost the presidential election, but they are winning new residents, largely at the expense of their politically successful blue counterparts.

Migration data for the most recent one-year period available, July 2010 to July 2011, show the Great Recession has shaken the rankings up quite a bit within the circle of fast-growth regions. The biggest winner has been Texas. The Lone Star state boasts four of the 10 metro areas with the largest net migration gains for the past two years. Dallas ranks first, followed by Austin in third place, Houston in fifth and San Antonio in eighth.

How about the biggest losers? From 2000-09, the metropolitan areas that suffered the biggest net domestic migration losses resemble something of an urbanist dream team: New York, which saw a net outflow of a whopping 1.9 million citizens, followed by the Los Angeles metro area (-1,337,522), Chicago, Detroit, and, despite recent improvements, San Francisco-Oakland. The raw numbers make it clear that California has lost its appeal for migrants from other parts of the U.S., and has become an exporter of people and talent (and income).

* Once a ‘foetus’ leaves the body of its mother, it is a full citizen, full person, with all of the constitutional rights and protections, privileges and immunities that you enjoy. The fact that you have continuously been unable to accept this legal, ethical, and moral truth makes one question the existence of both your soul and moral code.

That’s all nice and wonderful and everything, but from where I sit in a not-nearly-as-red-as-it-used-to-be part of Florida, far too many of them insist on bringing with them the same ideas and attitudes that created the blue-state toilets they’re fleeing.

I grew up right between Rockford and Chicago. That area is miserable now. People are unemployed and my brother and sister are both upside down in their mortgages by about $50,000 grand just due to the drop in housing prices.

Cindy, don’t fear so much, strange things are happening that may surprise most. One, the red states are becoming riflemen, slowly but surely, they are remembering their heritage, at least the rural folks are. There is also a burgeoning collusion of off-the-griders that are bringing together what used to be called hippies, or yuppies, whichever you prefer, and they are siding with survivalist, and I don’t mean the militias(read skin head neo crazies) I mean those who are embracing the rugged individualism again. It’s happening, and I think middle earth will be just fine:)

The process is a little complicated, but it will work, see you make laws based on the Constitution that are abhorrent to them, but you do it in a way that that can’t scream about. Case in point, open carries get tax free purchases, of course you need the store owners buy in, but I am guessing once a few got into it, the rest would follow based off the business.

To borrow Hillary’s oft quoted phrase ‘What difference at this point does it make?’
Peter Singer will tell you that abortion is just fine until the child is enrolled in Head Start.
Until we stop or sharply reduce this grisly slaughter, in or out of the womb, what is the difference between killing a child in the mother’s body or on the abortion table?
To argue otherwise is just splitting hairs.

Wow. It seems that McMahon either thinks that all of the highly shocking testimony had no impact on the jury, or he doesn’t have a real defense against it.

Gosnell is indefensible. Gosnell and his attorney probably hope to play a long game and have everything thrown out on appeal based on the fact that the courts treat abortion like it’s holy sacrament. I think we need to start thinking about the fact that the case presents us with the opportunity to finally get SCOTUS to relent on its abortion position. Ultimately SCOTUS may refuse to hear the case if Gosnell loses all of his appeals, but this case opens a door for us and we should put our shoulders into it.

Jesus would say, “Let he who has not murdered an infant cast the first stone.”
justltl

Actually He would say this “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” – Matthew 18:6

Sure. Let’s build a big fence around the Bible belt and lock people like you in it. It would look like Afghanistan in about 15 years.

Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2013 at 3:11 PM

The so-called “Bible Belt” includes some of the most prosperous states in the used-to-be Union. If a fence were built around it, people like you would be standing in line trying to get in, because they’re wouldn’t be any jobs in Lefty Land, and the Bible Belt wouldn’t bail out Brokifornia and Ill-Annoyed.

We already see this in Europe, where the prosperous and responsible Germans and Benelux countries are getting tired of bailing out the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain). And the UK under Lady Thatcher never wanted any part of the European Union, and she now looks like a prophet.

Possibility 3 would be a violation of professional ethics which would open the defense attorney up for losing his license to practice law and a malpractice case by Gosnell.

The defense attorney is not presenting any witnesses because he has no witnesses to refute the charges. He has no witnesses who will help.

In closing argument, he will argue [some of it is BA] that:

The defense has no obligation to prove anything.

The burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every element of each charge BEYOND a REASONABLE doubt. That is a lot more than a civil case, where the burden is more likely than not.

Did not present any witnesses because the prosecution’s case was so weak.

Each juror must consider the evidence and find Gosnell not guilty unless and until the juror is convinced that the prosecution proved each and every element of the charge BEYOND a REASONABLE doubt.

He will go through each and every element of each and every charge and argue that there is a reasonable doubt regarding some element of each charge. He is trying to reduce the number of charges that Gosnell will be found guilty. Maybe the jury will find him not guilty on every charge.

For whatever charges there is a not guilty verdict, the charge is gone forever.

Then there will be an appeal, where the defense will try to get some or all of the remaining charges reversed.

I choose to be an optimist, not a paranoid, hateful pessimist who sees the absolute worst in others.

Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2013 at 3:58 PM

47 minutes earlier:

Sure. Let’s build a big fence around the Bible belt and lock people like you in it. It would look like Afghanistan in about 15 years.

Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2013 at 3:11 PM

rogerb on April 24, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Apparently you don’t understand the concept of facetiousness. I wouldn’t want that to happen, if only because I wouldn’t want a little Christian version of Afghanistan in my backyard, fenced in or not.

I have heard some progressive Reform Jews state this explicitly. I sometimes worry this is the mainstream of Reform Judaism. I find my usually conservative stances conflict with my religion. I am resigned to this conflict.

thuja on April 24, 2013 at 4:05 PM

With your views on infanticide-you should feel right a home amongst the JINOS.
Btw: I’m reformadox. The Nazis would’ve murdered both of us. That knowledge is the ONLY thing that we have in common.

I wonder if the defense strategy isn’t to just run out the clock with appeal after appeal after appeal. Gosnell is 72 years old – with a long enough appeals process, he could end up dying safe and snug in his own bed.

So Lefties are against death penalty because it’s inhumane. So Lefties, point out what was in the testimony of this trial that supports your view abortion is a humane act. Is it humane to kill a baby as long as it’s done behind closed doors so the subject of the procedure isn’t humanized because you can see it’s not just a blob of cells?

I believe that minimal government interference in both markets and the private affairs of people is the best way to promote a prosperous, free society. I also don’t believe that this should be a very hard sell to reasonable people, regardless of their political orientation.

Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2013 at 3:48 PM

If how you sell your ideas here are any indication of how you’d sell less government and get the lazy off their butts, I can see how that would be a winning strategy.

I’d rather try to reason with progressives than religious zealots. I think most of them could be persuaded that minimal government serves their needs better than intrusive government.

Armin Tamzarian on April 24, 2013 at 3:19 PM

And thus you prove your retardation – they are one and the same. Progressives are worse than a religious zealot. They are secular zealots. The only higher power they can site is govt. And if there is no God, then govt. is all there is, which justifies more govt. to provide more control over people that don’t have self-control, which is often taught via religion.

Oh, and no hate for Muslims? But then again, they aren’t lecturing people, just bombing them.

The so-called “Bible Belt” includes some of the most prosperous states in the used-to-be Union. If a fence were built around it, people like you would be standing in line trying to get in, because they’re wouldn’t be any jobs in Lefty Land, and the Bible Belt wouldn’t bail out Brokifornia and Ill-Annoyed.

Steve Z on April 24, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Not to mention they’ll be starving, as they continue to turn what’s left of their fertile farmland into desert in the name of ‘environmentalism’, like they’ve done in California and elsewhere. Must save the spotted-snailowls, or something, you see!

Not to mention they’ll be starving, as they continue to turn what’s left of their fertile farmland into desert in the name of ‘environmentalism’, like they’ve done in California and elsewhere. Must save the spotted-snailowls, or something, you see!

Midas on April 24, 2013 at 11:57 PM

And even if THAT didn’t happen, once the stores ran out of malt liquor and KFC, only a few would have any idea how to grow food on any real scale.

If they were one of the lucky ones who the Bible Belt decided to set foot inside, the future of ‘people’ like Armin in such a land would be sentenced to life at hard labor, not allowed to keep children or access to communication networks so they could never again spread their mental disorder.